Beware
of good news
There isnÕt much good news out there, is there? Our
national debt has surpassed $8,000,000,000,000 dollars (www.brillig.com/debt_clock/),
the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to have generated a civil war, community
schools throughout our country are being forced to close down due to a lack of
funds, more and more good paying jobs are being outsourced to people overseas
(who will work for less money, no benefits, and in unsanitary/unsafe conditions),
politicians (both Republican and Democrat) are being exposed for corruption, and
an avian flu is just one mutation away from killing millions of our species
worldwide. Yet, despite all of this bad news, the media often puts a positive
spin on things or focuses on ÒgoodÓ news instead. Unfortunately, even much of
this ÒgoodÓ news isnÕt so good when one inspects it closely. Under inspection,
much of what stands for ÒgoodÓ news is just Òfeel goodÓ news full of fluff and
devoid of critical examination. It leaves the viewer/reader with a sense that
things are going well when in fact they may not be. LetÕs look at a few
recurring examples that should prompt us to be more skeptical recipients of
good news in the future.
Disclaimer: My goal in exposing the shortcomings of
ÒgoodÓ news claims is not to force us to wallow in despair. Quite the contrary.
We must look beyond the superficial positive attributes of many claims in order
to make sense of the real world (not just the one that we are told to believe
or the one we fantasize about). With a truer sense of what really is going on,
we can make better informed decisions. (And, donÕt worry, I will sprinkle in
some good news along the way.)
One
thing weÕve been hearing lately is how life expectancy continues to increase.
We take comfort in the fact that, on average, we are living longer. Supposedly
this is happening because medicines and medical procedures as well as the
augmentation of nutrients and vitamins in our diets reduce the likelihood of
premature death. Looking at the data, in 1900, male life expectancy (LE) in the
U.S. (at birth) was 48 years, and female LE was 51 years. By 1950, the male LE
had risen to 65.5 years (a 36% increase) while the female LE was 71 years (a
39% increase). By 2002, male LE was 74.5 years (a further 14% increase) and
female LE was 80 years (a further 13% increase) (Shrestha). This is great news,
isnÕt it? DonÕt people want to live longer and isnÕt it remarkable that men in
the U.S. are now living nearly 27 years (and women 29 years) longer than they
were just a century ago? I think this is good news, but there is more to the
story—the parts that often donÕt get reported.
On a global basis, people born in developing countries
today are expected to live 14 years less than people from industrialized
countries; women in developing countries fall short by 16 years (when compared
to their industrialized counterparts). Much of this shortfall is attributable
to unmet prenatal and childhood health care (including immunizations). Because
these two services are very inexpensive, they could be easily provided by the
wealthier nations of the world if there exists a sincere desire to reduce death
and despair; I am absolutely sick of the rhetoric on this issue. Back in the
United States, blacks are expected to live 4-8 years fewer than their white
counterparts. Significantly higher rates of poverty within black communities
(24.4% versus 8.2% in non-Hispanic white communities) as well as racial
discrimination in medical care programs are both thought to contribute to these
significant differences in life expectancy (Shrestha). And lastly, skyrocketing
obesity rates in the United States are also expected to cause life expectancy in
our country to actually decrease during this century (Olshansky et al.). For all of these reasons, 20th Century
gains in LE cannot be seen as unquestionably good but must be understood in a
larger context.
A five-minute radio news update (or streaming news on
the bottom of a television screen) undoubtedly contains reports from the New
York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ. These reports most often include updates on the
gains (or losses) of the Dow, NASDAQ, or the S&P 500 (composite measures of
selective stock values) and perhaps a few big multinational companies.
Typically, the listener is happy to hear that stocks are going ÒupÓ and not so
happy to hear them going Òdown.Ó To the investor, ÒupÓ means financial gain
(assuming that he/she owns stock in the companies included in these exchanges)
and ÒdownÓ means financial loss. It may make sense that we should be happy to
know that we have made money and unhappy to know that we have lost some.
(Actually, money isnÕt really made until the investor cashes in (i.e., sells)
their stock at a higher price than he/she purchased it for—neglecting any
dividends or inflation that may be applicable.) And, while I have nothing
against making money, there is more to the story than whether or not stocks are
ÒupÓ or Òdown.Ó (And to those who think this doesnÕt pertain to them, because
they donÕt own stock, if you have a bank account or any money put away for
retirement, you are an investor.)
In my mind, for it to be ÒgoodÓ news when a stock (or
a groups of stocks) goes Òup,Ó it matters more what stock(s) we are talking
about than whether they are growing. It matters because money is power and
growth in a company (often a by-product of increasing stock prices) means
greater influence and power commanded by said company. And since many investors
(my colleagues, for example) donÕt actually know what corporations/companies
they are supporting when they make their monthly retirement allotments (IRAs),
growth might be ÒgoodÓ for them personally (i.e., expanding assets) but
detrimental in terms of the expanding influence of specific companies. To
understand what I am saying here, consider a controversial company like
Wal-Mart. Many of my friends boycott Wal-Mart (i.e., we donÕt shop there)
because we believe that it is a company that treats its workers very
unfavorably (via low wages, insufficient or no health care, unpaid overtime,
etc.) and destroys communities by driving out small businesses (not to mention
its very questionable environmental record). Yet, I am sure that all of these
friends (and, sadly, even me) have some of our retirement monies invested in
Wal-Mart. Thus, when Wal-MartÕs stock goes Òup,Ó we profit, and we donÕt seem
to mind. (Here, our actions speak louder than words.) Yet, since there are many
more companies that an informed populace would likely not support (if they knew
their business practices and/or their environmental record), it stands to
reason that many of us would change our investment patterns if we were better
educated and our news media focused more critically on stock growth and
corporate power. Unfortunately, most of us donÕt have time (or the inclination)
to look carefully at our investments and our media seems fixed on giving us pro-business
sound bites rather than substance. Thus, as long as these tendencies continue,
we all will continue to support corporations that behave in ways that arenÕt consistent
with our worldviews; a short list of such companies might include those involved
in tobacco, alcohol, prisons privatization, weaponry, etc. In summation, the
news of a growing stock market must be inspected more carefully in order for a
proper assessment of it can be made and Òfeel goodÓ interpretations will likely
lead our world down unfavorable paths.
A
few days this winter the temperature seemed unreasonably warm. Very few people
complain when it is ÒhotÓ in the winter, especially in the heart of the
Midwest, where winter temperatures routinely dip below freezing. Warmer than
usual temperatures allow us to get outside and enjoy the environments around
us. Additionally, when it is warm in the winter, our home furnaces, radiators,
and other heating devices need not work as hard and this means lower heating
bills, something very much appreciated when natural gas (a very important
source of energy for heat) prices are so high. For these reasons, among others,
people consider warmer temperatures a blessing and definitely good news. How
could a warm winter day be anything but?
One
warm day in itself isnÕt bad and it may in fact have the benefits noted above.
However, a warming trend could be disastrous when looking at our environment in
a holistic way. For instance, if a winter has mild temperatures and spring
comes early, dangerous insects (including, disease-carrying mosquitoes, fleas,
or ticks) many flourish in the following summer; a mild winter in 1998-99
appears to have been an important factor in why West Nile Virus carrying
mosquitoes were able to take a foothold in the summer of 1999. There exists an
analogy here that we relate to from our daily experience. Few people like a
rainy day, yet, we would suffer greatly if there were no rainy days—our aquifers
would dry up, the vegetation would desiccate, etc. Thus, this winter, when
Chicago had 26 consecutive days with above normal temperatures, we should have
given pause to its larger implications. Chicagoans certainly saved mucho
dinero on their heating bills and
probably more of them got outside and enjoyed their environments than would
normally. (In the end, this winter was ChicagoÕs only the 37th
warmest of the past 135 years—noteworthy but not eyebrow raising.) But, will
the long stretch of warmer than normal days in January tip the balance in favor
of insects this summer?
On
a larger spatial scale, excessively warm/cold or wet/dry conditions might spell
disaster in the long term. Since humans (all of us) appear to be contributing
to climate change, we all need to recognize that our consumption of fossil
fuels is responsible for altering the weather and the climate. We need to keep
this in mind even during ÒnormalÓ days, because our behaviors may be implicated
in outbreaks of West Nile Virus and hurricanes gone Òwild.Ó To forget or ignore
this connection make us more vulnerable to future climatic changes.
Having
been engrossed with environmental topics for some time now, I am sensitive to
the lack of serious attention given to environmental issues in the mainstream.
This lack of exposure translates to: ÒNo news is good news.Ó This position can
be very dangerous and isnÕt one that should govern the way we function. There
are so many areas that deserve our collective attention, and to Òturn a blind
eyeÓ or Òbury our heads in the sandÓ is irresponsible and foolish. Similarly,
to ignore relevant environmental news now, just because it seems depressing and
insurmountable, is to dismiss the role that we all play in the outcomes. All
positive change for human society has come from struggling people who have stepped
up to the challenge and forced change. Environmentally speaking, those that
worked assiduously to get the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act
passed in the 1970s did just that. Unfortunately, no law is permanent and these
two environmental policies have recently endured considerable attack and
undermining at the hands of the Bush Administration. It is now time for those
of us to stand up and be heard. If environmental news isnÕt making its way to
you, it is time that you made your way to it. The future minds, brains, and
lungs of our children and their children depend on us to demand protected
habitats and clean air.
Now
for some good news. By eliminating lead from gasoline in the United States in
the 1980s, lead levels in our nationÕs children dropped precipitously.
Currently, lead paint, though banned from production in the 1970s, is the
primary source of lead poisoning in our children which still causes them
significant mental decline. The ivory-billed woodpecker, one of the most
spectacular of the worldÕs woodpeckers and thought to be extinct for many
years, has recently been observed in eastern Arkansas. At the same time,
habitat destruction worldwide is putting many birds on the brink of extinction,
including, Indian vultures and the albatross. The Stockholm Convention, an
international agreement that focuses on eliminating (or reducing and finding
safe alternatives for) twelve of the more dangerous chemicals from human
production and use—including, DDT, mirex, PCBs, and aldrin—went
into force on May 17, 2004 after it was ratified by a fiftieth nation. The
United States has still refused to ratify it (although, Canada, the United
Kingdom, France, India, China, and even Iran has done so). This failure to
acknowledge the problems with these chemicals and join other countries in their
effort to ban them makes our nation look arrogant and dismissive of scientific
research in the eyes of the world.
Obviously, from these ÒgoodÓ news flashes, one sees
that all news must be understood
in a larger context because no news is unequivocally Ògood.Ó Sure we should
celebrate our accomplishments (and enjoy our warm winter days) but we also have
to be more honest and realistic about what is going on in the world. Our future
(and our progenyÕs future) depends on it.
Works Cited
Olshansky, S.J. et al. (2005) ÒA Potential Decline in
Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century.Ó The
New England Journal of Medicine, 352
(March 17), pp. 1138-1145.
Shrestha, L.B. (2005) Life Expectancy in the United
States. CRS Report for Congress. 32
pp.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a climatologist
with publications in the area of climate change and human population growth. A
nationally-ranked Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and maintainer of
the website dedicated to peace and empowerment: www.onespower.org.
03/30/06